|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,474
Posts545,167
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9 |
eightbore,
Ugh, Jim has it right. The weight/mass of the powder is calculated in the recoil formula. You have to push the powder/powder gases down the barrel also. I think there is a formula on trapshooters.com that shows this (I don't visit that site).
This is why a similiar blackpowder load of the same velocity and shot weight will recoil more than a smokeless load. You have to push all that BP crap down the barrel.
Apologies, but you are wrong on this one.
Mike
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,983
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,983 |
Shame on you, Jim. You know very well that weight and velocity of ejecta are the only significant indicators of recoil and weight of powder charge does not enter the equation. Red Dot, Nitro 100, PB, and 7625 have very different burning rates and are not suitable for all the same loads, even though they may be suitable for some similar loads. Charge weight is not a factor in determining powder substitution except by coincidence. Should we change the title of this thread to "Old wive's tales of reloading"? I hope you're joking! Just in case you're serious, the powder charge is most definitely part of the ejecta. If you are pulling my Legg, it's a bit longer now.
> Jim Legg <
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,125 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,125 Likes: 198 |
I hope both of you are joking when you claim to be able to tell the difference on recoil between a load that weighs 500 grains, including shot, wad, and powder and a load that weighs 509 grains, especially when a good part of the extra nine grains of powder are in gasseous form on ejection. You guys are both victims of the "Old wive's tales of reloading". Jim's original statement was obviously meant to imply that a heavy load of powder in a published load would recoil noticably more than a lighter load of powder in a load of the same shot weight and velocity. It is plain not true and is "An old wive's tale". I personally think he was joshing, I hope Mike was aware of the joke. I'm not sure. Remember Mike, Jim said he could "feel the difference". I am amused.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,983
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,983 |
The only joke is on you. I could feel it, whether you believe it or not. The difference is about 1 ft.lb recoil energy. The world is full of people who insist they can "feel" less recoil with longer farcing cones. A recoil reduction that doesn't exist. Chuckle away but if you think the powder weight is not a very real part of the ejecta you need to read the book again.
Last edited by Jim Legg; 07/18/07 03:27 PM.
> Jim Legg <
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
